A. F. CANT entered the College of the Bible from Maylands church, W.A., in 1955. Having already studied at W.A. University he completed his B.Ed. in his first year of College. Graduating from Glen Iris in 1957 he proceeded to Brighton Gardens, S.A., where he has accepted a call to the end of 1964.

Introduction.

      The following discussion is all really of an introductory nature because the writer finds time for intensive study very hard to come by, so makes no pretence that this is the last word on the subject. It will be observed that many personal opinions are expressed, and of course these are capable of changing with more experience and greater knowledge. Our form of church government is, however, a question which should exercise our minds in these days of adventuring in Christian Unity and moves towards church unions The title of this pamphlet could be expanded to read: "Is our 'mere independency' best for the total life and mission of the church?"

What Do I Mean by "Mere Independency?"

      Basically the fact that among our churches each congregation is in no way under the authority of a State or Federal Conference of Churches. Congregations in our Brotherhood can teach almost anything, use all sorts of methods, support almost any mission work, call any man to be their minister, dispose of their property, etc. while resenting strongly any interference from the Conference of churches. There exists among us a very strong tradition that no local church is going to be told what to do by Conference, Executive or any other representative group. This individualism springs from the spirit characteristic of our pioneers on the western frontier in the U.S., where our Movement gained its real impetus.

      We are happy enough to cooperate (generally speaking) on mission work, social service, youth work, etc., but no congregation is OBLIGED to support any of these things. In relation to the ministry we are wide open to all sorts of abuses. A congregation can, without reference to Advisory Boards or any Brotherhood Department, call any man to direct the policy and teaching of the church. This has meant that there have been, and there no doubt will be, churches of the Brotherhood barely distinguishable from Brethren or even Pentecostal groups.

How Did It Arise?

      It is well known that the Roman Catholic Church was the only Christian church in the Western World during the Middle Ages. This church was strongly authoritarian, with no power at all vested in the congregation. Every decision was made by the controlling clergy. When the Reformation broke the power of Rome, the Protestant denominations which sprang up took on various forms of government, ranging from Calvin's authoritarianism to the Anabaptists' freedom. Protestantism has never presented a united front on this matter of church government, and the succeeding years have only hardened denominational methods.

      Our large and influential American movement began as merely an association of Christians who had a similar vision. When they were no longer accorded fellowship in their respective churches, nor in the Redstone Baptist Association, they organised a separate church. The various strands which came together to form this "Christian" group had divergent backgrounds and varied ideas which could only thrive in the freedom of a congregational organisation. As evidenced by the

1906 split of the anti-organ, anti-missionary society "Church of Christ" group, there was a strong "anti-conference" tradition in the movement from the early stages.

      In our writings there does not appear to have been much attention given to the field of church government. In Britain, the U.S., and Australia there are somewhat different approaches to this matter, largely due to there being no solid theological basis for our ways of doing things. Our systems seem rather to have evolved slowly by laws of expediency, all of course attempting to build on the New Testament principles of democracy and the priesthood of all believers.

      Because we have given such a practical emphasis to this latter principle, our members have been accustomed to things always being done the way the local congregation desires. Quite rightly we have been consistently opposed to the principle of a State Church, or any government interference in church affairs. But along with this we are afraid of letting Conference assume any directive power, and even resist Conference being able to make representative statements on topical issues, such as capital punishment. Hence the development of most of our co-operative work has been rather slow. Only gradually have the local congregations been willing to let Conference Departments go ahead committing the Brotherhood to ventures without bringing every thing back to General Conference.

      Over the years the lack of men with the time and the ability to systematise and formulate conclusions relating to church government is now being felt. We have paid a good deal of attention to doctrine, but little to church organisation.

Is It Scriptural?

      In Acts 15 we have the record of the conference at Jerusalem when the matter of circumcision for the gentiles was discussed. It was not left to Antioch or any other gentile church to decide, but a council of the whole church (not only the Apostles and Elders) made a decision, and this was then accepted by all the other churches. This is the only clear example from the New Testament of a conference, and the weight its decision carried.

      An Episcopal correspondent of Alexander Campbell pointed out that the nature of Christian organisation mentioned in the New Testament was "strictly casual and incidental." He purported that no pattern can be clearly discerned, in fact "so far from it, that the notices of it in Apostolic writings are purely incidental and exceedingly incomplete." Campbell came back that "Christianity is all found in the New Testament." However, few of our people have been as strenuous as Campbell in trying to uphold this, and some Disciples have rather cynically said: "It is impossible to restore New Testament Christianity, because no one knows what New Testament Christianity was."

      It is hardly to be expected that we would get much guidance from particular New Testament examples, because the period of writing was a "missionary" situation. For instance in OUR, mission fields, particularly the newly established one, there is no "congregationalism" as exists in Australia. The Federal Board makes decisions of policy (or at least reserves the right to veto Field Council decisions) and controls the purse strings.

      In the New Testament situation, while the Apostles lived, they exercised a definite authority over the churches, appointing Elders, Preachers, etc We latter day disciples have to put their great principles preserved in their writings into practice in our particular society.

      It is obvious that on the local level rule was by Elders and Deacons--that they controlled

the general affairs of the churches. When the Apostles passed there seemed to be a period of flux and relative indecision, when there was little authority manifest in the Church universal. This lack of co-operation and authority in the second and third centuries resulted in all sorts of heresies besetting the Church. Gnosticism was so widespread it all but eclipsed the true teaching regarding Jesus. The development of a centralised Roman system of government was practically necessary once freedom had been too much abused among the churches of North Africa and Asia Minor.

      The answer to the question: "Is our 'mere independency' scriptural?" does not appear easy to give. The only thing we can say is that there is definitely no scriptural support for mere independency. On the other hand, the small amount of information we do have, leads in the direction of a form of co-operative authority.

What of Our Pioneers?

      Alexander Campbell did of course discuss this question, though not convincingly enough to change the minds of many who opposed him! A definite development in his own thought can be traced through his writings, and we will only be concerned with his later position.

      He outlines clearly that the Apostles were given a direct authority from Christ--a PERSONAL authority which could not be passed on. Or rather, they did pass it on, but through the New Testament, not through bishops. Campbell states that the elders or bishops did not have a like authority to the Apostles as law-makers because no legislative power was given them by the Apostles or by Christ Himself. They are still, however, the main officers responsible for the congregation in which they have been appointed They have the duties of (1) teaching the whole counsel of God; (2) ruling well by reconciling warring groups through meekness, candour, firmness and patience; (3) undertaking pastoral visitation for the purposes of edification and evangelism.

      At various points in Campbell's writings we find statements that there is a real sense in which the church is a democracy. He said that in questions of faith and morality the church could NOT make any decisions--they were matters of Apostolic authority; but in all matters of expediency there is no other way of deciding than by vote of the Brotherhood.

      In support of "the principle of expediency" Alexander Campbell adopted the principle of the common mind. He had unswerving faith in the correct judgments of the enlightened mind. In matters open to opinion, the majority of those who love the Lord must decide such questions.

      Even if this principle is accepted we are still faced with the problem of how far we look for the common mind. Is it merely the common mind of a local congregation, or should it be the common mind of the chosen representatives of the congregations as they meet together in conference? It would seem that the best solutions to most questions, or the best advice on some aspect of the work's extension, could be obtained from a combined church gathering. On our present form of organisation we often meet with a deadlock when a congregation (which may as a group not agree with a conference decision) is asked cheerfully and conscientiously to acquiesce in such decision.

      Each congregation is a church--but ALL the congregations in a city or Sate also make a church. If a Board of Officers is given a region of authority over a local congregation, it seems only reasonable that the "Board of Officers" (the Conference delegates, who should all be Elders or Deacons of

their local churches) should have a realm of authority over the larger church.

      Kellems points out (in "Alexander Campbell and the Disciples") that it is clear from the whole tenor of Campbell's writings that he did not believe in what he called "Mere Independency"--on every occasion he strongly attacked it. Ultra-congregationalism was showing its head in the time of the pioneers, and Campbell notes: "Soon as disrespect for hereditary office, or what is the same thing in effect, under another name the partiality for what we have called lay bishops, or those chosen without regard to any sacerdotal or hereditary ordination, gradually increased, and independency was born. This among many Protestants became a popular theory, and they undertook to reform the church by making every congregation a sort of Kingdom of Christ in itself."

      Campbell rapped the Ultra-congregational theory with the words: "There must then, be some great mistake in the minds of those who imagine that Christ's Kingdom is a collection of ten thousand particular communities, each one being wholly resolved from any respect, co-operation, inspection, or subordination in reference to any work or purpose necessary to the carrying out and perfecting of that grand system of sanctification and conversation which began in Jerusalem under the rich effusion of the Holy Spirit." Note that here he speaks not only of respect and cooperation but of inspection and subordination!

      In an article in the "Christian Messenger", to illustrate what he thought on the question of organisation, Campbell assumed a hypothetical situation of the formation of a new church on the island of Guernsey. He said the Elders and Deacons of all the churches would need to come together to be able to act as a church.

      He clearly defined, in the eighth of a list of points he suggested would need to govern their life, that the body corporate should have an entity and authority of itself. ". . . all economical and prudential duties are in their nature and design conventional, and must be enacted by the authority of the whole community; and then, like the by-laws of all other corporations, when agreed to, are to be conscientiously respected and obeyed by all the good and orderly constituents or members of that community."

Is It Practical?

      I cannot believe that our "mere independency" is one of the strengths of our work. I believe the secret of our virility lies in other directions. Listed below are four aspects of our church life in which I believe congregations could well consider surrendering same of the absolute autonomy which they hold. (a) There is the matter of the Ministry. While I think each congregation has every right to reserve to itself the final choice of a minister, I believe there should be certain limitations. For instance, there could be a Federal Conference Department fulfilling the function of an accrediting board, and only ministers accredited by this board would be eligible to be called by any church in Federal Conference. This would not mean that only men who had been through one of our colleges could be accredited; but at least it would mean that our men would need to be recognised leaders who knew the heart of our Brotherhood position.

      I believe this would give us higher standing among our Christian brethren. It would indicate that we did care about the standard of our leadership, and were concerned that God's work was cared for in the best possible way by us. A people wherein the local milkman can become the fulltime minister--without any reference to an accrediting body!

--cannot expect to be taken very seriously by Christian communions who set very high standards for their ministries. The point here is not that the local milkman could not or should not be called by God and a local church to the fulltime work but that it can be left to a few individuals in a local (often insular) group to bring a man into the ministry of Churches of Christ.

      Furthermore, I believe it should be obligatory for all churches and ministers to convey

      their intentions and desires to State Advisory Boards, and never to proceed to make arrangements with complete disregard to these provisions,

      (b) On the question of church property, it is appalling that a very valuable set of buildings, established and built up by generations in the past, should be entirely in the hands of a particular group of church officers for disposal, or any other usage. If a church has a lean period, and the membership decreases, it means that the savings and sacrifices of hundreds, over a period of many years, is at the mercy of a few, who may not have contributed much to its development at all. For a church to be a member of State Conference of Churches of Christ it should be obliged to invest its property with the Conference--and only the Conference would have the right to release it.

      (c) A perhaps more controversial aspect of our church life is in relation to church officers. To an outside observer it must seem odd that in our Brotherhood there is not even any uniformity on the type of officers a church may appoint. This very important matter is left to the opinions of each congregation (and very often a few strong talkers in each group!) so consequently we have quite a hotchpotch. Most churches have Deacons, and some have Elders as well. Quite a lot don't have Elders! Would it not be far better for the whole Brotherhood to acknowledge that New Testament churches have Elders and Deacons, and to ensure that all churches had these officers to efficiently carry out their ministries? It has even been noted that in some of our churches there were no officers at all!--for some time--things just seemed to happen. How open to abuse can we get! Members of other communions must think that we don't care a button about office bearers.

      (d) A fourth suggestion to throw into the pool will perhaps be more provocative than any of the others! It seems to me that if the combined "Officers' Board" of the churches of a State decide on a practical venture, such as the establishment of a Brotherhood Centre, it ought to have the right to make a levy on all the churches to see that the amount of finance is raised. To take a real part in a democratic institution would to me entail such practical involvement.

      A very important consideration in the realm of practicality is Christian Union. Our "mere independency" position is not a practical one for Christian Union. By far the majority of Protestant Christians have same form of authority vested in their central bodies. It would certainly stretch the imagination to think of all Christians accepting OUR position in the field of church government!

      When God blesses the church with union we will no doubt be involved in a kind of structure not yet envisaged, but one which will in itself express the authority of Christ, the Head.

Conclusion.

      As was warned at the start, this paper is not a very learned, or even a very ordered consideration of the problem of church government. However, the kind of organisation we apply to God's church can be very influential on the success or otherwise of our total mission, so ought to engage our thinking and will power.